R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THISAPPEAL is filed by the Insurance Company which is the third respondent in O. P. No. 104/1980 on the file of the District Judge cum-Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Karimnagar, question ing its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants who are respondents one and two herein.

( 2 ) THE present respondents one and two who are claimants before the lower court had filed the petition under the provisions of A. P. M. V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the death of their son in the accident which took place on 20-10-1980 at Peddapalli-Karimnagar road near Chinna kalavala bridge. The vehicle involved in the accident was lorry bearing no. AAT 1321 which was owned by the third respondent herein and it was driven by fourth respondent herein at the time of the accident. The deceased who is the son of the claimants was aged about 16 years and he was travelling in the lorry which was a goods vehicle and in which cement bags were being carried on. As per the contention of the claimants, the deceased and some other persons numbering about 24 got into the lorry and sat on the cement bags and were travelling a t the time of accident by paying fare to the driver of the lorry. The accident, recording to them, took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its d river. The dependents of the other persons who died in the accident filed separate petitions claiming compensation, and all the petitions were tried together arid disposed of by the common. order dated 4-12-1984. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that theaccident took place on account of rash and negligent drivaig of the lorry by its driver. On the basis of evidence the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants in O. P. No. 104/80. The respondents 3 and,4 herein who are driver and owner of the vehicle have not chosen to question the orders of the Tribunal. The insurance Company which is the present appellant and which was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal has however chosen to file the present appeal questioning the order of the Tribunal contending that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was a goods vehicle carrying cement bags and that 24 persons were travelling in the said lorry at the time of the accident which is in violation of the terms of the insurance policy as well as the permit issued to the lorry and that in view of such circumstances the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation, The appellant is not dispu ting the findings of the 1 ower Cou rt regarding the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver due to which. the accident had taken place.

( 3 ) THE only point that, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company, which is the appellant in the present case, is liable to pay any compensation to the claimants?

( 4 ) THE lorry which was involved in the accident was admittedly insured with the present appellant-insurance company by the fourth respondent. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident, took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver is not disputed by the appellant and the respondents 3 and 4 who are the driver and owner of the vehicle have also not chosen to question the orders of the Tribunal. The only contention of the appellant, which is the insurance company, is that it is not liable to pay any compensation as the deceased along with many other persons numbering about 24 had travelled in the lorry which is a goods vehicle and that it is in violation of the terms of the insurance policy as well as the permit issued for the lorry. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Oriental Fire and Genl. Insurance Co, Ltd. vs. M. Bhanumathi in support of his contentions in this regard. A similar point arose for consideration in that Division Bench decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document